Video: Gingrich schools Pelley on “rule of law” on terrorists

posted at 10:59 pm on November 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I missed tonight’s CBS debate, mainly because I spent a great evening with some of my blogging friends here at FreedomWorks’ BlogCon2011. When I returned, though, I got a few messages about one particular moment in the debate, where CBS moderator attempted to lecture Newt Gingrich on the “rule of law” regarding American citizens who join the enemy to wage war against the US. Big mistake.

The two worst aspects of this exchange? The smug look on Pelley’s face when he challenged Gingrich on this point, and the “no” you can hear him utter just as Gingrich started his smackdown of Pelley. Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change. Pelley isn’t running for President, and we don’t need to have Pelley debating the presidential candidates. We need them to debate each other. It’s only made more ridiculous when a moderator-turned-participant ends up as far out of his depth as Pelley was on this question.

As I mentioned, I didn’t watch the debate, but from my Twitter feed and a few e-mails, it seems that many thought that Gingrich and Romney were strong as usual, Rick Perry did surprisingly well, and Herman Cain spent too much time deflecting with promises to have a team of experts look at the issues once he’s elected President. I don’t know how Rick Santorum did in the debate, but his team sent out their spin e-mail with the subject line, “Draft Template,” which leads me to conclude that he at least flunked the post-debate. Either that or he’s looking to back a new candidate named John R. Template for the Republican nomination.

We already have one open thread for the debate, but feel free to add your opinions on the debate in this thread, too.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

A person at war with the U.S. has declared themself to be “extra-judicial”.

They oppose our laws and want to end our lives and have joined an enemy force to wage war on us.

This ends their protection under our laws.

And even the Third Geneva Convention even agrees with this, noting that when fighters break the “rules of war” they become “illegal enemy combatants”- otherwise known as terrorists, spies and saboteurs- they can be summarily judged on the battlefield for these “war crimes” and immediately executed.

Or simply killed in battle by our troops not believing in their claims : e.g.- “I’m surrendering…!” when they are more likely planning a suicide bombing and bargaining in bad faith only to get nearer to kill more troops, to damage more ordnance, etc.

You take up arms against us, we give you hellfire in return.

Pussyfooting with suicide bombers sounds pleasing in a Pelley-an drawing room, but gets you dead in action.

..he may have no choice, Cindy. Gingrich said that failure to agree on his favored debate format (3-hour-L/D-sans-moderator) will see Newt following Obama around the campaign trail, rebutting every vapid, stammering, persiflage-ridden utterance with facts and arguments as Newt did to Pelley in the clip above. Newt says Lincoln did this and it resulted in Abe’s answers making more press than Douglas’s utterances; Douglas soon capitulated.

I predicted this just as Gingrich was being hyped as the next “flavor of the week” that his rise might end up being the greatest boon to Perry. How, you ask?

Well… we’ve all been told by almost everyone that the debates are veeeerrrry important. One would think we were to watch the debates and elect the best Debater-in-Chief. Gingrich fits this bill – he debates better than anybody else.

But now sit back and enjoy the articles and arguments that are about to show up saying in essence “Erm… maybe the debates shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all they’ve been made to be.” We will now hear “Yeah, Gingrich is the best debater, but his record…”

LOL… funny that records matter when you are good in the soundbite debates but never seem to matter when you are not.

Sure. Gingrich is far more damaged than Palin is, and in Newt’s case it wasn’t all undeserved.

I didn’t like the idea of Palin’s resignation, either. I think in doing so she probably gave up the possiblity of ever running for office again. But the two “abdications” are related only in the MOST superficial ways.

I am beginning to think the debate moderators are intentionally feeding Newt lines to make him look good. Either that or they are dumber than you would think and know much less that a moderator should about the person they are questioning.

You don’t think the Dems will show every single nook and crannie of every single square foot of every single one of Mitt’s houses during a campaign, do you?

Rich people have homes some of them just good properties to lease out.It’s good business and they like putting their money in them. They also pay their mortgages. Newt is running in the hole. Did he pay his $500K tab at Tiffany’s yet?? What with these 17 not-for-profit organizations he and his 3rd bride have created?? The books and movies and on and on…where’s the direction? What’s the point of all this? It’s maniacal.

I would love if the republican candidate would create youtube videos of a fake lincoln-douglas style debate against obama. They could take 3-4 minute clips of obama from his speeches and then respond to them as if he were at a podium next to them. you know with facial expressions and the like. Eviscerate him on everything he’s ever spoken about and it’d go viral, you know it would. they could dig through all the obamateurisms… it’d be beautiful.

I’m 60 years old, raised 2 great boys, with great careers, divorced and am going blind. I don’t need someone like you preaching to me about morals.

Who in the hell died and made you the moral authority king?

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM

..I was thinking the same thing. Congrats on your two sons, deeply sorry about your loss of vision and your marital break-up. As for the success last night, at your age, you should brag about it. Hell, at my age (six years your senior), I sure do look up to you!

There should be two person debates in a “Resolved that:, Pro and Con” style. Each candidate can choose names for who they debate until each candidate had debated one other candidate. Then pick names for a second name with no candidates repeated. After that, the candidates can pick and choose who they want, with the other candidate free to accept or not.

I am beginning to think the debate moderators are intentionally feeding Newt lines to make him look good. Either that or they are dumber than you would think and know much less that a moderator should about the person they are questioning.

Although Newt can be generous, engaging and entertaining of course, he is more often an arrogant, condescending professor, reminding all of us of the books he has written and the people he has known and just how gosh darn smart he is. Newt is actually pushing me toward Romney who is very smart, sans the women problem and much richer without the proclivity for excess.

gracie on November 13, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Like I said, there are those that perceive his demeanor the same way you do. I happen not to mind a certain amount of over-confidence and high self- esteem. And more so, in a campaign, being somewhat boastful seems like a necessity to me.

I’m afraid the main issue these days is which party is in power, and so it is not in the (party) interests of same party candidates to show up each other’s shortcomings. Hence these are of course not debates but public question & answer sessions by media people. This is all we can expect.

Still, if the questions are at least sometimes good we can form halfway reasonable judgements, though not as informed as we would like. If we’re lucky, very lucky, we might get a decent president this way, but the record on this is not good.

And more so, in a campaign, being somewhat boastful seems like a necessity to me.

lynncgb on November 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

It depends on what you’re boasting about. “I’m so much smarter than you are” isn’t all that great. “I ultimately crashed and burned as Speaker” doesn’t make a good boast either, no matter how many legislative victories he helped shepherd through.

Finding out how a candidate will deal with a problem they have never had experience with is not cheap talk.
csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Oh, but it is. Words are just words. Anyone can say anything. If you believe it, well, then there is a very inexpensive bridge for sale you might be interested in purchasing. I have several expensive speech writers standing by to coach me into saying very convincing words. When you hear them, you will buy my bridge. :)

Their words only have meaning based on the candidate’s past experience dealing with other problems, even if it is a new problem to them.

We two governors (current and ex), a restauranter, a former House Speaker, a freshman congress woman, an Obama appointed ambasador, an American apologist, as well as other assorted personalities as choices.

Which one did what in which situation, and how did that turn out for him/her? By their actions and associations you can judge how they will govern.

Failure to do this last time around led to Obama, do we care to repeat the experience again?

Here in the South, when you get your clock cleaned, we applaud it.
Joe “You Lie” Wilson epitomizes that.
I like Newty, hope he gets the nomination cause a red tailed skink could beat O’Bama.
Nobody has the nerve to call Gingrich “dumb”, you just saw what happens when they try.

Pelley’s a weasel who had it coming. He’s not a moderator, he’s an arrogant antagonist always trying to play “gotcha” with anyone who has an R after their name, just like the rest of the 60 minutes marching band of liberals.

I agree that Gingrich/Cain would be a good ticket, but also that a ham-sandwich could probably defeat Obama. Gingrich’s “Contract w/America” was masterful and forced Clinton to co-opt it and most of the Republican platform to be re-elected.

Occasionally I wish for an “Outlook”-like (mail) filter to unclog the comments from contributors CSdeven, ddrintn, HondaV65, TheRightMan, RickyRicardo, when astonerii surprises me with a well-expressed critique of the Awlaki killing, which I also opposed. Dang.

Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless,

Not utterly, for they give us moments like this. Everytime Gingrich does his he performs a public service and indirectly chips away at Obama’s media phalanx. These encounters have ten times more impact than any thinktank’s report on media bias.

rrpjr on November 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM

I agree completely. I was heartened to hear the response of the crowd. I will vote for Newt mostly because 1) he has the intellect
backed up with conservative principles and 2) he will smoke Obama in the debates – I would pay to see/hear it!~

While I have some reservations on how Newt would perform when
in office (how many compromises will he make with the whacko democrats?) I am willing to give him a chance to do the right things when in office. It is up to us citizens to support the
right things and let him know if he goes off track.

One thing that can’t be overlooked is Newt’s command and knowledge of American history, and how it aptly applies to issues at hand…he is just plainly a step above most everyone else running for President…he has issues, but intellect and knowledge is not one of his weak points, and he makes all others look like amateurs.

“Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they’ve got to navigate not only federal rules, but they’ve also got to navigate state and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that’s something that we want to encourage,” Obama said.

Thats it. If it weren’t for that damn constitution everything would be great. One wonders how we got this far without the federal government in charge of everything and everyone. So let’s create another bureaucracy to help people navigate the existing bureaucracies.

The execution and ramifications of such a decision when regarding American citizens deserve more than such a simple-minded answer.

Just a few thoughts:

Giving a President the authorization to use all necessary force in the prosecution of an undeclared war is a danger not only to civil liberties, but lacks the recognition of the fact that vesting unlimited, unchecked power in the hands of one man is NOT in keeping with a constitutional republic.

Do you trust your government to not abuse that power? Do you trust that unlimited authority in the hands of this President?

If you trust his SECRET panel reviewing UNDISCLOSED information who’s method of adjudication is UNKNOWN with the power to decide the use of ultimate force against a citizen of the United States – regardless of their likely being a scumbag – then I would say that you ignore a history rife with examples of the abuse of Presidential authority from John Adam’s time onward!

Two weeks later we assassinated Awlaki’s 16 year old son who was also a U.S. Citizen. Why was he assassinated? Again, we are not given details. Although his friends on Facebook seemed rather upset about it.

Regardless of which party happens to hold the executive branch I will NOT place my full and abiding trust in their authority. It is the duty of the citizen of a republic to remain ever skeptical. Unless, of course, you’re given to tyranny.

Notice how quiet it gets there when Newt starts talking? After the moderator says, “No it isn’t,” and there’s a smattering of applause from the libs in the crowd, Newt sort of starts over, and you could hear a pin drop. The word is gravitas. No other candidate has it and it is worth its weight in gold. Newt is the EF Hutton candidate and he will smack down any moderator who tries to stop him for smacking down Obama, should he end up debating him. Then he will go ahead and smack down Obama, who will then decide that debating is an out-moded format that was set up to disadvantage people of color, or some such drivel.

“If there was a loser on the debate stage tonight, it was CBS. First, they scheduled their debate on a Saturday night between two major football games. Then they decided to only broadcast the first hour of their 90-minute debate. Then their Internet feed failed for the final 30 minutes. This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed.”

I am beginning to think the debate moderators are intentionally feeding Newt lines to make him look good. Either that or they are dumber than you would think and know much less that a moderator should about the person they are questioning.

pgrossjr on November 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM

The media moderators are legends in their own minds.

Their conceit is such that they cannot conceive anyone is smarter than they are or will come back at them (past complacence of Rs contributed to this).

That someone can speak with command and authority does not make them right. Just ask the surviving Germans of the 1930s.

bmowell on November 13, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Paging Godwin, Godwin?

Is it really your position that the support of Newt is based solely on an ability to speak with generic (and implicitly dangerous) command and authority rather than on an appreciation for the specific uses and subjects of his command and authority? Isn’t a certain “command and authority” sort of required of an executive?

Is it really your position that conservative supporters of Gingrich are mimicing the 1930s Germans’ blind embrace of authoritarian and supremacist rhetoric?

Is it really your position that the support of Newt is based solely on an ability to speak with generic (and implicitly dangerous) command and authority rather than on an appreciation for the specific uses and subjects of his command and authority?

Yes. Do YOU agree with Newt’s voting record?

Isn’t a certain “command and authority” sort of required of an executive?

No. Would you disqualify a soft-spoken Jefferson on this basis?

Is it really your position that conservative supporters of Gingrich are mimicing the 1930s Germans’ blind embrace of authoritarian and supremacist rhetoric?

No. Though you certainly appear to want to marginalize my comments by making them sound that way.

You never raised Newt’s voting record. You want me to NOW respond to Newt’s voting record after analogies to Nazi-enthralled 1930s’ Germans? How about this — you cite his voting record and indicate how, when allied with his disturbing “command and authority”, will produce results similar to 1930s Germany.

Jefferson was not a man of command and authority? Few men in our history had a greater command of issues and authority in their expression. What has “soft-spoken” got to do with anything? Are you suggesting Gingrich’s “command and authority” is strictly tonal and dangerous for that reason alone as opposed to substantively fascist? What in fact are you saying?

I didn’t marginalize your comments. I asked you, since you left very little room for alternate interpretation.

Command and authority come in different varieties. You made a clear and inflammatory reference to a particular type represented by Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Either back it up or withdraw it — but efforts to scumble it with a bunch of immaterial challenges to others won’t work.

Perhaps you should try invoking an actual argument.
bmowell on November 13, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Yes. The ONLY reason that we were attacked on 9/11 was their desire to force their religion on us.

It had absolutely nothing to do with our prior actions in the Middle East.

bmowell on November 13, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Our “prior actions” in the Middle East were to answer the combined request of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for support after Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. By deploying US troops to Saudi Arabia we profaned the land of the two mosques. That is the direct reason bin Laden launched 9/11.

It may seem insane to us, but it is merely that he was operating under a very different set of values and assumptions than we do. From his perspective, by profaning what he saw as sacred ground, we were inviting the wrath of an entity sufficiently powerful to condemn everyone who ever lived to an eternity of torture. In that scale of things, if a few must die, so that all may live, is that wrong? More over, the few who must die are the ones who perpetrated the wrath in the first place, so it is not just?

That is the moral framework bin Laden operated under. Not insane, but rather, completely alien to what we have in the west, and in the end, fundamentally incompatible with it.

What does Hitler have to do with whether or not our constitution considers the declaration of war on the United States, by a U.S. citizen a treasonous act, punishable by loss of citizenship? These no-minds, who follow Mr. Isolationist, himself, Ron Paul, keep confusing civil laws and rights with those of enemy combatants. A citizen who takes up arms against the United States in an act of war is not comparable to a citizen who attends a TEA Party, holding up a protest sign.

This was your initial “argument.” Then you invoked some absolute drivel about an undeclared war. Your arguments were refuted, then you invoked a “concern” about people blindly following Newt as people followed Hitler.

Our “prior actions” in the Middle East were to answer the combined request of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for support after Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. By deploying US troops to Saudi Arabia we profaned the land of the two mosques. That is the direct reason bin Laden launched 9/11.

It may seem insane to us, but it is merely that he was operating under a very different set of values and assumptions than we do. From his perspective, by profaning what he saw as sacred ground, we were inviting the wrath of an entity sufficiently powerful to condemn everyone who ever lived to an eternity of torture. In that scale of things, if a few must die, so that all may live, is that wrong? More over, the few who must die are the ones who perpetrated the wrath in the first place, so it is not just?

That is the moral framework bin Laden operated under. Not insane, but rather, completely alien to what we have in the west, and in the end, fundamentally incompatible with it.

That’s you’re argument?!

You’re limiting the entire reason for enmity between the Middle East and the U.S. to the presence of military bases?

Aren’t you leaving out a few details?

Atrocities that we have directly and indirectly perpetrated over the course of decades for example?

This was your initial “argument.” Then you invoked some absolute drivel about an undeclared war. Your arguments were refuted, then you invoked a “concern” about people blindly following Newt as people followed Hitler.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

…keep confusing civil laws and rights with those of enemy combatants. A citizen who takes up arms against the United States in an act of war is not comparable to a citizen who attends a TEA Party, holding up a protest sign.

If bmowell wants arguments he should make a valid one.

JannyMae on November 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM

You’re right.

There is no point in ensuring the rights of the innocent.

Nor do we have any historical precedents that would give us reason to be skeptical of our government.

A person who is a national of the United States whether by
birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily
performing any of the following acts with the intention of
relinquishing United States nationality –

taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal
declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political
subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen
years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign
state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against
the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or
non-commissioned officer; or

committing any act of treason against, or attempting by
force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States,
violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of
section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in
violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384
of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down,
or to destroy by force the Government of the United States

Screw you. If you want to take the side of terrorist then you are no better than Al Qaeda. Its war both sides kill each other.

They got what they deserved.

William Amos on November 13, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Would you like to see some pictures of the families and children that we routinely kill as a result of our misguided foreign policy?

Would you like to see some pictures of the soldiers who have been maimed and mutilated?

That we are in a catch-22 of our own creation should give everyone pause, and at least be reason enough to give full consideration to changing course rather than just spouting off the same, tired neo-con line.

I would love if the republican candidate would create youtube videos of a fake lincoln-douglas style debate against obama. They could take 3-4 minute clips of obama from his speeches and then respond to them as if he were at a podium next to them. you know with facial expressions and the like. Eviscerate him on everything he’s ever spoken about and it’d go viral, you know it would. they could dig through all the obamateurisms… it’d be beautiful.

Being a traitor is considered differently and you lose your citizenship

William Amos on November 13, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Then perhaps all of these questions could be settled by the government presenting their case.

bmowell on November 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM

You are confusing combat and police work. Police work does not involve weaponry being employed that levels buildings or causes large casualties. They are neither trained, nor equipped to handle groups that deploy grenades, rocket launchers, and machine guns in quantity.

Consider, to return him to the US for trial would have entailed an assault on his location, which would have also resulted in numerous fatalities on both sides. Would that have been acceptable police practice either?

In the end, I’ve found the only consistent dividing line between war, and police is to be the level of firepower each is willing to commit. Otherwise, you end up sending police up against grenades, or trying to serve warrants with an Abrams. Neither end well.

…which would have also resulted in numerous fatalities on both sides. Would that have been acceptable police practice either?

Voyager on November 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM

You’re right. This most certainly doesn’t happen now as a result of a failed foreign policy.

We are certainly acting in an expedient manner. While we are at it, maybe its time that we just start abandoning the wounded and the bodies of our military personnel . There is no reason to act on principal anymore. Expediency is more important.